New releases here: SAFE and ¿QUIÉN MATÓ A LA LLAMITA BLANCA? (a comedy of 2 Bolivian criminals who are married to each other, and who have to smuggle drugs to Brazil). Oh, and also THE HOBBIT. What should I do?
Originally posted by Vits
It's 10 AM, so I had no problem waking up to see the live streaming of the Golden Globe nominations announcement. Any second now.
-HOTEL TRANSYLVANIA over PARANORMAN?! -I thought MARIGOLD would be up for Best Comedy/Musical, but SALMON FISHING IN THE YEMEN?! Over 21 JUMP STREET?! And even TED?! -Why is THE SESSIONS under Drama and not Comedy? -Ummm... What is ARBITRAGE?
Originally posted by jesse685
If you can, please private-message me your contenders and front-runners for each usual category (e.g. Best & Worst Picture) here on the forum.
Every ounce of credibility has left the Golden Globes. Their snubbing of "The Dark Knight Rises", "Skyfall", "Community", and "Game of Thrones" shows proof of that.
By the way, I'm currently putting together my nominating ballot for the 2013 Methane Movie Awards. I'll have it up for voting after Christmas.
Not really. I mean, the Globes have no credibility, but it's for other reasons.
1) Most people agree that TDKR isn't as good as TDK, so a Best Picture nomination for TDKR for any award where TDK wasn't nominated (including the Oscars) is out of the question.
2) Never has any 007 movie been nominated for major Oscars, let alone Golden Globes. Sure, a lot of people are saying that SKYFALL ties with CASINO ROYALE as the best of the franchise, but it's hard to convince Sean Connery fans, which I'm guessing most of the Oscar and Globes voters are.
3) COMMUNITY constantly gets snubbed. The Globes are just keeping up with the fad. Besides, and this is coming from a fan of the show, season 3 was weaker in comparison. So of course they couldn't nominate without having nominated the first 2 seasons.
4) GoT was nominated last year. I'm not saying that season 2 wasn't good. Maybe it was as good as the 1st one. But you sounded like they never would've considered it.
So, does the Golden Globe/Streisand snafu give her more (or less) of a chance at getting a Razzie nomination?
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: While the peon at Paramount accidentally posting the You Tube video congratulating Babs on a Golden Globe Best Actress nomination she didn't actually receive is deliciously embarrassing, it really should have no impact on whether she's nominated by us for Worst Actress. I say let's wait for the movie to actually open (or at least garner a low Approval Number at R.T.) before we make the decision. As of now (9am/PST on Friday, Dec. 14) GUILT TRIP has only one review...but that one review is marked "Rotten."
GoldDerby has just started to chime in on their predictions for the 2012 RAZZIES. I'm mighty displeased. Not only are they predicting that Breaking Dawn Part 2 will win Worst Picture, they're also predicting that John Carter will ALSO be a finalist. One average-reviewed film for Worst Picture is bad enough, but I'll be PISSED if the voters waste nominations on two! That's hardly less than HALF the Worst Picture finalists that critics (and presumably, people in general) didn't mind or were neutral towards! They'd better hope for our viewers' and the critics' sake that Gold Derby is wrong about Carter!
So far, they only have predictions for 3 categories. For Worst Actor, they're predicting 2 nominations for Twilight: Breaking Dawn 2 for Worst Actor. I hope they're wrong about that too. You people WILL have to remind me why Breaking Dawn Part 2 deserves to sweep the nominations when we have plenty of bigger fish to fry, such as A Thousand Words and That's My Boy.
For Worst Actress, there's been a question going around for some time: Despite not receiving an official subforum at the RAZZIES, does A Little Bit of Heaven stand much of a chance of being a finalist for Worst Actress for Kate Hudson? If Gold Derby is to be believed, the answer is YES.
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I am aware of the Gold Derby "predictions contest" -- In fact, we are not only cooperating with them on it, as of this morning, we have a promo for their contest on our Main Page. As far as Derby's users and "experts" accurately predicting what we end up nominating, I wouldn't spend too much time or energy worrying about it. When I last checked their guesses as to potential contenders, they had an excess of choices in every category listed (Worst Picture is now up to 27 titles!) and seemed to have even the remotest of possibilities alongside what I would consider our likelier eventual nominees.
On the issue of TWILIGHT and JOHN CARTER being included as possible Worst Picture contenders, their experts are probably basing that on precedent: Several past TWILIGHT titles have gotten Worst Picture nods, and, even though several Forum members have staunchly defended it, JOHN CARTER is widely cited as one of 2012's biggest box office bombs, so it's not like those two being listed doesn't make at least some sense...
RAZZIE Dirty Dozen: Battlefield Earth, F G Fingered, Pluto Nash, A Sound of Thunder, Alone in the Dark, Dirty Love, Rise Silver Srfr, Daddy Day Camp, IKWKM, The Love Guru, All About Steve, Airbender
I think 90% of those characters are meant to be annoying. And I think the #1 choice is a little to exaggerated. But I'm always glad to see someone also hating on choices #5 & 7!
As others pointed out in that site: How can BATTLESHIP be "the most disappointing movie of the year" if nobody expected it to be any good in the first place?
Generally speaking, even if a character IS meant to be annoying, it should be done in a way that people will still enjoy watching them, and enjoy the movie overall. It can't be the goal of any movie-maker, to give birth to a character SO annoying, that the actor or the movie gets bad reviews, or the audience stays away. Look at Little Nicky, with a Budget of $ 85 Million, making only $ 58 Million worldwide. FAIL!
In the article about Battleship, Berg's statement is the most interesting thing. After calling this an "interesting opportunity to look at what went wrong and how it went wrong", I really would like to hear his conclusions, and I hope to see him nominated for Worst Director.
I also love how the author points out that Taylor Kitsch starred in the biggest box office bomb AND one of the worst movies of the year. Quite the achievement!
EDIT: It definitely was disappointing for the producers, studio and other people involved.
For those who've seen CLOUD ATLAS: Are you disappointed that it's not an Oscar finalist for Best Make-Up/Hairstyling? Because a lot of people are. I'm shocked to see HITCHCOCK on that list, and even LOOPER (I loved the movie and everything, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt's transformation into a young Bruce Willis was plain creepy).
And since we're on that subject, if you thought the Academy's new Best Picture voting system was too convoluted, the WGA Awards' system is even worse. Why? Because these movies can't be nominated.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: Here 'Tis...
